Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteran Energy Cycle


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Matteran Energy Cycle

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No independent sources to establish notability. Link to SATOP does not mention either Matteran or Sterling Power and google search of site finds no mention. No significant google hits of "Matteran energy cycle". Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if the name of the article was changed to Matteran Energy Corporation? It is largely about the company anyway. Biscuittin (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think so. Searching for "Matteran Energy Corporation" does not provide anything to establish notability. noq (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - searching for Matteran Energy gets a bit under 2,000 Ghits. I'm not sure there are sufficient reliable sources to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Strong delete. Purely promotional. No reliable sources to verify that the article meets WP:N criteria. And a News search reveals there isn't likely to be any.--res Laozi speak  02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability, in Wikipedia terms, requires multiple reliable and independent sources which significant coverage of the subject. The article is promotional in tone and rather vague about the "promising, patented" doodad. It would be great to get huge amounts of electricity from a novel engine working on a temperature differential of 50 degrees F, but where are the books and journal articles validating the claims? Come back when verifiability and notability are satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. This is also advertising from beginning to end. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.